RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Time

Moderators: trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ

User avatar
An Unbiased Fan
RealGM
Posts: 11,738
And1: 5,709
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
       

Re: RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Tim 

Post#141 » by An Unbiased Fan » Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:28 pm

penbeast0 wrote:Once again, ignores rebounding completely . . . not sure why averaging 22 rebounds a game over 13 years doesn't impress certain people but apparently it doesn't. And, peak, the greatest scorer ever is Wilt, not MJ; and Wilt's coaches talked him into giving it up to try to copy Russell . . . how's that for impact.

Team RPG averages:

60' - 73.5 rpg
65' - 67.3 rpg
70' - 52.9 rpg

75' - 47.1 rpg


80' - 44.9 rpg
85' - 43.9 rpg
90' - 43.1 rpg
95' - 41.6 rpg
00' - 42.9 rpg
05' - 41.9 rpg
10' - 41.7 rpg

^
What becomes fairly obvious, is that the rebound numbers from Russ/Wilt's era, are VASTLY overinflated. Even the early 70's are a bit inflated, which is why a pre-prime KAJ posted better number early in his career.

Russell's rebound rate is not the best when you factor in the average during his era. Nevermind the fact that he would have a tougher time grabbing boards over modern players who are longer, more athletic, and stronger.

If you take 1965 Russell's RPG(24.1), and match it with 2010, he would average around 14.9 rpg, which is great, but not on Rodman's level. That's assuming he could get the same boards over today's players that he got in the 60's.

Honestly, how highly would a 15 rpg, 10 ppg, DPOY center rank in today's game? Russell's team impact would be interesting in today's game, but would it be enough to make him dominate the modern era?
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
GreenHat
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,985
And1: 340
Joined: Jan 01, 2011

Re: RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Tim 

Post#142 » by GreenHat » Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:29 pm

ElGee wrote:
@GreenHat - those are fair points. I try to focus less on rules differences (outside player control) and more on what I perceive as competition level. For instance, I think the quality of play this year was phenomenal across the league. I think the quality of play and competition in 1999 wasn't. That's how *I* adjust for era. I don't take it any further than that, although your questions are good ones.


I'm similar my only point in rule changes is that people give it consistent weight.

The same people who are ignoring that it was harder for offenses to score because of the rules (to prop up Russell's defense) will be the same ones shouting "ITS SO MUCH EASIER TO SCORE NOW THAT PLAYERS CAN TAKE 4 STEPS!" when it comes to an older offensive player.

I just want consistency.
Your emotions fuel the narratives that you create. You see what you want to see. You believe what you want to believe. You ascribe meaning when it is not there. You create significance when it is not present.
GreenHat
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,985
And1: 340
Joined: Jan 01, 2011

Re: RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Tim 

Post#143 » by GreenHat » Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:32 pm

penbeast0 wrote:Finally, if you stop the other guy from scoring as many points as you do, you win. Period. It doesn't matter how many points you score; so Russell's defense is more valuable than MJ's offense by that rather silly standard. The book Wages of Win finds there are 4 major factors that correlate most strongly to winning and none of those 4 dominates the others. They are (a) offensive efficiency -- this is clearly Jordan's territory both as a very efficient scorer and as a guy who can create shots when the clock is running out. (b) defensive efficiency -- this is clearly Russell's territory as no one has had the consistent defensive impact he had and Jordan's defensive impact isn't close. (c) rebounding differential -- again, Russell dominates. Like defense, this is a reason big men are more valuable than little ones, positional impact being near equal. (d) turnover efficiency -- both were good passers, both created turnovers. I'd guess this favors Russell for his ability to block shots to his teammates and relatively superior passing but not by the same margins. So, it seems that impact on winning isn't just scoring, scoring, scoring or George Gervin, Allen Iverson,and Dominque Wilkins would have multiple rings.


For point (d) Block shots aren't turnovers why are you counting blocks in the turnover efficiency category? Not saying they aren't helpful but they have nothing to do with correlations drawn by the author.
Your emotions fuel the narratives that you create. You see what you want to see. You believe what you want to believe. You ascribe meaning when it is not there. You create significance when it is not present.
GreenHat
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,985
And1: 340
Joined: Jan 01, 2011

Re: RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Tim 

Post#144 » by GreenHat » Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:35 pm

An Unbiased Fan wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:Once again, ignores rebounding completely . . . not sure why averaging 22 rebounds a game over 13 years doesn't impress certain people but apparently it doesn't. And, peak, the greatest scorer ever is Wilt, not MJ; and Wilt's coaches talked him into giving it up to try to copy Russell . . . how's that for impact.

Team RPG averages:

60' - 73.5 rpg
65' - 67.3 rpg
70' - 52.9 rpg

75' - 47.1 rpg


80' - 44.9 rpg
85' - 43.9 rpg
90' - 43.1 rpg
95' - 41.6 rpg
00' - 42.9 rpg
05' - 41.9 rpg
10' - 41.7 rpg

^
What becomes fairly obvious, is that the rebound numbers from Russ/Wilt's era, are VASTLY overinflated. Even the early 70's are a bit inflated, which is why a pre-prime KAJ posted better number early in his career.

Russell's rebound rate is not the best when you factor in the average during his era. Nevermind the fact that he would have a tougher time grabbing boards over modern players who are longer, more athletic, and stronger.

If you take 1965 Russell's RPG(24.1), and match it with 2010, he would average around 14.9 rpg, which is great, but not on Rodman's level. That's assuming he could get the same boards over today's players that he got in the 60's.

Honestly, how highly would a 15 rpg, 10 ppg, DPOY center rank in today's game? Russell's team impact would be interesting in today's game, but would it be enough to make him dominate the modern era?


Of course rebounds from back then are very inflated.

People were taking a lot more shots and making a lot less of them. That's why there were so many rebounds, there were so many misses. Russell is a great rebounder, but he's nowhere near 20 in today's game.
Your emotions fuel the narratives that you create. You see what you want to see. You believe what you want to believe. You ascribe meaning when it is not there. You create significance when it is not present.
drza
Analyst
Posts: 3,518
And1: 1,861
Joined: May 22, 2001

Re: RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Tim 

Post#145 » by drza » Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:36 pm

Sedale Threatt wrote:Absolutely no question -- Jordan's championship teams were excellent.

Not the most glamorous, but more than enough. He always had two top-flight defenders with him, with Pippen and Grant/Rodman, not to mention very solid players like Cartwright and Harper. The most underrated quality was how well-constructed those teams were. They complemented him extremely well.

I don't know if I look at Jordan as doing any more or less than Russell.

I'd just argue that:

A. It's become trendy to diminish Russell's supporting casts for being a bunch of inefficient chuckers, when that was pretty much the era, in order to give him ALL of the credit for Boston's success.

B. It's patently unfair to hold Jordan's lack of early success against him compared to Russell, when the situations were totally and completely different.


I think we're on the same page, here. But I do think that there is a lot more discussion about Russell's supporting casts than there tends to be about Jordan's or Magic's or Bird's, and I think there's a reason for that. I think that with the others, despite the greatness of their cast, the focus tends to be on their individual accomplishments. Whereas with Russell, for many he can't be mentioned as among the best without a caveat thrown in that he had great teammates. Yet, others had great teammates but they're only mentioned as a footnote.

I think the reason for that is two-fold. One, that so many use "11 rings!" as a pro-Russell argument, but second and more importantly IMO, Russell doesn't fit the mold for individual greatness (as I mentioned before), so I think that folks need to have another reason for why he had so much success, and that reason becomes his teammates. At least, this is my opinion.

As for your B), I totally agree with you. It's a mantra that I'm sure you've heard from me many times, and you'll continue to hear: championships are team accomplishments. No matter HOW good a player is, they just aren't going to be "winners" if they're alone. To me it's about what you do with what you have. And Jordan was maximizing that well before he started winning rings.
Creator of the Hoops Lab: tinyurl.com/mpo2brj
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
ThaRegul8r
Head Coach
Posts: 6,448
And1: 3,037
Joined: Jan 12, 2006
   

Re: RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Tim 

Post#146 » by ThaRegul8r » Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:39 pm

An Unbiased Fan wrote:Russell's rebound rate is not the best when you factor in the average during his era. Nevermind the fact that he would have a tougher time grabbing boards over modern players who are longer, more athletic, and stronger.


Like Kevin Love has, right?

:roll:

An Unbiased Fan wrote:If you take 1965 Russell's RPG(24.1), and match it with 2010, he would average around 14.9 rpg, which is great, but not on Rodman's level. That's assuming he could get the same boards over today's players that he got in the 60's.


Bill Russell: A rebounder […] is always at a disadvantage if he tells himself the only way he can succeed is by outjumping the guy next to him. Sometimes he will have to, but most of the time he will not. The guy who insists on going up as high as he can every time is reacting—and losing—rather than taking a specific positive action necessary to accomplish what he wants. Most of my rebounds came from positioning, where I was able to get the ball while in heavy traffic.

Dennis Rodman: [T]here’s more to it than being able to jump higher than the next guy. A lot of the work is done before you ever even jump.

Bill Russell: A really important part of rebounding is being able to jump up more than once. You have to keep trying for that ball. Sometimes you jump four or five times before you can get your hands on it.

Dennis Rodman: The one thing I do that nobody else does is jump three and four times for one rebound. I stay with the ball and control it by tipping it closer and closer to myself, until I get it close enough to get both hands on. I’ve got a quick jump—one of the quickest. I can get down on the floor and back up in the air faster than a pogo stick. Most people think you have to jump high to get a rebound, but jumping quickly is more important. I can jump and tip, jump and tip, jump and tip—boom! boom! boom!—three times in the time it takes the other guy to jump once. That’s the key. It takes some concentration and body control to keep your head up and stay with the ball the whole time. It also takes conditioning, because a lot of guys get slow and tired after the second jump. They’re the ones taking a deep breath when I’m launching into my third or fourth jump.

Interesting that Rodman was doing the same things that Russell was doing thirty-some years prior,

The New York Times wrote:“Earlier in the week, the Knicks’ alarm was sounded when Coach Jeff Van Gundy said the Knicks’ key to beating the Bulls was to control the boards. That meant controlling Rodman, the greatest rebounder since Bill Russell.”


The New York Daily News wrote:the best pure rebounder since Bill Russell.”


yet you don't know whether Russell would be successful, when what he said has been proven effective.

Kevin Love: I studied the greats. Dennis Rodman had it figured out: he knew that most shots are going to come to the other side of the rim. So that’s how I position myself. And Bill Russell always used to say that 80 percent of rebounds are below the rim. I’m not the kind of guy who’s going to jump and touch the top of the square every time. I use my body for positioning, and I work relentlessly underneath the rim. You don’t have to be the most athletic guy in the world to get a bunch of rebounds, so I just try and take […] what Rodman said to heart, and most importantly what Bill Russell said to heart. He’s got 11 championship rings so I think he knows what he’s talking about.
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters


Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
drza
Analyst
Posts: 3,518
And1: 1,861
Joined: May 22, 2001

Re: RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Tim 

Post#147 » by drza » Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:43 pm

An Unbiased Fan wrote:Team RPG averages:

60' - 73.5 rpg
65' - 67.3 rpg
70' - 52.9 rpg

75' - 47.1 rpg


80' - 44.9 rpg
85' - 43.9 rpg
90' - 43.1 rpg
95' - 41.6 rpg
00' - 42.9 rpg
05' - 41.9 rpg
10' - 41.7 rpg

^
What becomes fairly obvious, is that the rebound numbers from Russ/Wilt's era, are VASTLY overinflated. Even the early 70's are a bit inflated, which is why a pre-prime KAJ posted better number early in his career.

Russell's rebound rate is not the best when you factor in the average during his era. Nevermind the fact that he would have a tougher time grabbing boards over modern players who are longer, more athletic, and stronger.

If you take 1965 Russell's RPG(24.1), and match it with 2010, he would average around 14.9 rpg, which is great, but not on Rodman's level. That's assuming he could get the same boards over today's players that he got in the 60's.

Honestly, how highly would a 15 rpg, 10 ppg, DPOY center rank in today's game? Russell's team impact would be interesting in today's game, but would it be enough to make him dominate the modern era?


See, here's where you're trying to have your cake and eat it to. You point out the areas in which Russell's numbers would look worse in today's game (estimating 15 rpg) but you don't correspondingly point out where his offense likely is dramatically better. Remember, Russell was often among the league leaders in FG% and was also among the league leaders in assists at various times. He also was hyper-athletic, and had enough of a grasp of the game to be a player coach. As such, in today's NBA that focuses more on face-up bigs that emphasize athleticism and uses much more sophisticated offensive schemes, wouldn't Russell almost by definition be a much better offensive player? Or at the very least, have much better offensive box score numbers.

In other words, I don't care about the 22 rpg number. When I see it, I automatically correct in my head for era. Box score stats are like that. But if you're going to tune down the rebounds to account for era, you have to correspondingly tune up the offense and can't give a 10 ppg estimate.
Creator of the Hoops Lab: tinyurl.com/mpo2brj
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
GreenHat
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,985
And1: 340
Joined: Jan 01, 2011

Re: RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Tim 

Post#148 » by GreenHat » Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:57 pm

drza wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:Team RPG averages:

60' - 73.5 rpg
65' - 67.3 rpg
70' - 52.9 rpg

75' - 47.1 rpg


80' - 44.9 rpg
85' - 43.9 rpg
90' - 43.1 rpg
95' - 41.6 rpg
00' - 42.9 rpg
05' - 41.9 rpg
10' - 41.7 rpg

^
What becomes fairly obvious, is that the rebound numbers from Russ/Wilt's era, are VASTLY overinflated. Even the early 70's are a bit inflated, which is why a pre-prime KAJ posted better number early in his career.

Russell's rebound rate is not the best when you factor in the average during his era. Nevermind the fact that he would have a tougher time grabbing boards over modern players who are longer, more athletic, and stronger.

If you take 1965 Russell's RPG(24.1), and match it with 2010, he would average around 14.9 rpg, which is great, but not on Rodman's level. That's assuming he could get the same boards over today's players that he got in the 60's.

Honestly, how highly would a 15 rpg, 10 ppg, DPOY center rank in today's game? Russell's team impact would be interesting in today's game, but would it be enough to make him dominate the modern era?


See, here's where you're trying to have your cake and eat it to. You point out the areas in which Russell's numbers would look worse in today's game (estimating 15 rpg) but you don't correspondingly point out where his offense likely is dramatically better. Remember, Russell was often among the league leaders in FG% and was also among the league leaders in assists at various times. He also was hyper-athletic, and had enough of a grasp of the game to be a player coach. As such, in today's NBA that focuses more on face-up bigs that emphasize athleticism and uses much more sophisticated offensive schemes, wouldn't Russell almost by definition be a much better offensive player? Or at the very least, have much better offensive box score numbers.

In other words, I don't care about the 22 rpg number. When I see it, I automatically correct in my head for era. Box score stats are like that. But if you're going to tune down the rebounds to account for era, you have to correspondingly tune up the offense and can't give a 10 ppg estimate.


The problem is the Russell supporters want their cake and everyone else's cake and eat all of it and even save some for later.

They want his efficiency to be bumped up because the whole era was inefficient, but for his defense not to take a hit from competing against inefficient players.

They want his assist numbers bumped up because it was harder to get assists back then but they want you to ignore that rebounds were almost twice as easy to gather.

They want you to assume that Russell would routinely get 10 blocks a game in today's game, even though calculating his blk% off of game films doesn't support that conclusion at all with the much fewer shots.

They want you to count his rings without taking into account that he only had to beat out 7 teams at some points and 0 teams over a 2 SRS in some seasons.

They want you to recognize how much better his team is than everyone without accounting for how good his teams were minus him.
Your emotions fuel the narratives that you create. You see what you want to see. You believe what you want to believe. You ascribe meaning when it is not there. You create significance when it is not present.
User avatar
An Unbiased Fan
RealGM
Posts: 11,738
And1: 5,709
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
       

Re: RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Tim 

Post#149 » by An Unbiased Fan » Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:04 pm

drza wrote:See, here's where you're trying to have your cake and eat it to. You point out the areas in which Russell's numbers would look worse in today's game (estimating 15 rpg) but you don't correspondingly point out where his offense likely is dramatically better. Remember, Russell was often among the league leaders in FG% and was also among the league leaders in assists at various times. He also was hyper-athletic, and had enough of a grasp of the game to be a player coach. As such, in today's NBA that focuses more on face-up bigs that emphasize athleticism and uses much more sophisticated offensive schemes, wouldn't Russell almost by definition be a much better offensive player? Or at the very least, have much better offensive box score numbers.

1) Playing in the modern era wouldn't have made Russell into a great post scorer. He didn't possess the offensive skill. And the era where he was in the Top 5 for FG% was 1957-1960, where there was no Wilt or great post scorers.

I have a problem with handing players new skills when comapring them across eras. I have seen videos of Russell playing, and his offensive skilset doesn't look any better than Deke's. He certainly wouldn't be much of a volume scorer in modern times, IMO.

2) Also, pumping up his assists numbers seems a bit odd. It's not like he was putting up Cousy or Oscar numbers. He clearly had the ball in his hands alot, so 4-5 apg isn't truly that amazing, especially in an 8-team league where the main star has a great chance at cracking top 10. Wilt's apg during his prime years were far more impressive.

In other words, I don't care about the 22 rpg number. When I see it, I automatically correct in my head for era. Box score stats are like that. But if you're going to tune down the rebounds to account for era, you have to correspondingly tune up the offense and can't give a 10 ppg estimate

Russell's rpg was tuned down by simply looking at the league rpg rates from 1965 to 2010. If anything, I gave him the benifit of the doubt, by assuming that he would have just as much success in today's game, as he did in the 60's.

There is nothing to indicate he would be more than a 10 ppg scorer.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
User avatar
pancakes3
General Manager
Posts: 9,585
And1: 3,014
Joined: Jul 27, 2003
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Tim 

Post#150 » by pancakes3 » Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:04 pm

drza wrote:In other words, I don't care about the 22 rpg number. When I see it, I automatically correct in my head for era. Box score stats are like that. But if you're going to tune down the rebounds to account for era, you have to correspondingly tune up the offense and can't give a 10 ppg estimate.


i get that, i really do. however, i reconcile era differences by looking at how a player did relative to their peers and minutes-adjusted or not, Russ had a lot of competition for "greatest rebounder". wilt is the most obvious but bob petit also topped 20 boards a game - and not to mention guys like bellamy, bellamy, and baylor who were teetering on the edge with 19.

ok, so russ was a superman amongst men - like rodman amongst drob/hakeem/shaq. fair enough. but what about jordan? his strength came in scoring and in his 37 ppg season 2nd place went to 'nique at 29.0! ([snark]kobe's 35.4 was only 2.4ppg better than AI's 33ppg[/snark]) .

again, i recognize Russ's talent. he was a defensive monster. he was able to throw an outlet pass in a way that this league hasn't seen in decades. he swatted shots like they were flies and has a career pf average of 2.7. the problem is.. wilt was doing all of this also and really at what point does the intangible outweigh the tangible?
Bullets -> Wizards
ThaRegul8r
Head Coach
Posts: 6,448
And1: 3,037
Joined: Jan 12, 2006
   

Re: RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Tim 

Post#151 » by ThaRegul8r » Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:12 pm

GreenHat wrote:They want you to recognize how much better his team is than everyone without accounting for how good his teams were minus him.


Slater Martin: “Boston just wasn’t much of a team until Russell showed up.”

Ed Macauley: “We played them a couple of times when Russell wasn’t in the lineup, and they were an ordinary club. With him, they were just superb.”

Bob Cousy: “We can win without me or Bill Sharman or Tom Heinsohn, but we can’t do it without Big Bill” (The New York Times, Mar 8, 1961).

“Without Bob Cousy or Tom Heinsohn or Bill Sharman the Boston Celtics are still the world’s greatest basketball team. Without Bill Russell they can be beaten” (The Milwaukee Journal, Jan. 25, 1962).

If anyone doubts the value of Bill Russell to the Boston Celtics, the performance of the three-time National Basketball Association champs in the last four games may change their mind.

Russell, considered the best defensive player in the game, has missed the last four games because of a foot injury and the Celtics have lost every one.

Their four game losing streak matches their longest since March, 1957, and has cut their Eastern Division lead from 10 to six games.



February 2, Russell suffered severely sprained ligaments in his right knee in a 95-94 loss to New York at Boston Garden. With New York leading 95-92, Russell was the recipient of a pass and scored on a layup. He fell hard to the floor and writhed in pain as the Knicks ran out the last 12 seconds.

HOLLYWOOD (UPI)—Television’s most publicized sports rhubarb of the season came when NBC-TV cut away from the end of a New York Jets football game to start a special program, “Heidi.”

But Sunday ABC-TV, whose notable sports department has many achievements to its credit, made an on-the-air decision that may be more significant in terms of coverage—and was regrettable to fans who have come to admire the network’s genuine interest in athletics.

The decision came at the end of ABC-TV’s weekly professional basketball game, this one between the Boston Celtics and New York Knickerbockers. Right before action ended, Boston’s great player-coach, Bill Russell, took a long pass, rammed it through the basket—and then fell to the floor, hard.

As the game ended, he remained there, his knee severely whacked, and as the camera properly moved in on him, one could see the pitiful sight of Russell in obvious agony, a heart-rending picture. For basketball fans, and for just ordinary televiewers, it was a simple matter of human concern.

One of the announcers made the correct statement that although New York had won the game, the real story was there on the floor: Russell. What the announcer was talking about was the implication in regard to the league race—and also the human story concerning Russell, the most dominant figure in the history of professional basketball.


Boston lost five straight, their longest losing streak since the 1949-50 season. Russell returned February 9, 1969 against the 76ers, helped them overcome a 10-point deficit, blocked two shots and then dunked a shot with two seconds remaining to tie the game and send it into overtime, where after the Celtics took the lead he had made a key free throw and a key steal to preserve it as Boston won 122-117.

all MVP talk about Reed, Frazier, Cunningham and Unseld aside, Russell is the man who could bring Boston back. After Russell's magnificent posthospital game against the 76ers, Havlicek told The Boston Globe : "It's a damn shame you have to place so much of a load on one person. They keep saying this guy is the key, that guy is the key. There's only one key—him [Russell]—and he's only human, like everybody else."


Of course, don't let the facts get in the way or anything.

:roll:
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters


Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
drza
Analyst
Posts: 3,518
And1: 1,861
Joined: May 22, 2001

Re: RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Tim 

Post#152 » by drza » Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:13 pm

GreenHat wrote:The problem is the Russell supporters want their cake and everyone else's cake and eat all of it and even save some for later.


I can address your whole post, in its entirety, point-to-point, purely by directly quoting things that I ALREADY WROTE in this thread. I'm a Russell supporter, and I don't need everybody's cake. But it'd be nice if at the least a person quoting me to rebut had actually read what I've written.

GreenHat wrote:They want his efficiency to be bumped up because the whole era was inefficient, but for his defense not to take a hit from competing against inefficient players.


drza wrote:Simultaneously, Russell also had the quickness, speed and explosiveness to be an Olympic caliber athlete in track-n-field. As such, I believe that he would be a major defensive horizontal presence in today's NBA as well, perhaps the most valuable defensive asset there is at present.


GreenHat wrote:They want his assist numbers bumped up because it was harder to get assists back then but they want you to ignore that rebounds were almost twice as easy to gather.


drza wrote:Finally, while he might not average 20+ rebounds per game these days, I definitely could see Russell leading the NBA in rebounding with modern examples like Rodman, Wallace and Love demonstrating it can be done.


GreenHat wrote:They want you to assume that Russell would routinely get 10 blocks a game in today's game, even though calculating his blk% off of game films doesn't support that conclusion at all with the much fewer shots.


drza wrote:For example, I don't think Russell would average anywhere near double-digit blocked shots in today's NBA. BUT, there have been man players with his rough body type to lead the league in blocked shots in the last 25 years (Hakeem, Ratliff, Mourning, Wallace, even Howard). With current training methods, I think Russell would still be able to lead the league in blocks whatever era he was in.


GreenHat wrote:They want you to count his rings without taking into account that he only had to beat out 7 teams at some points and 0 teams over a 2 SRS in some seasons.

They want you to recognize how much better his team is than everyone without accounting for how good his teams were minus him.


drza wrote:Now, does any of that diminish what Jordan did? OF COURSE NOT! If you're judging based on a player's individual impact, or at least trying to, then it doesn't matter how good their teammates were or weren't. That might make a difference in how many rings a player gets (which is why rings shouldn't be a stand-alone argument), but it doesn't make a difference in how good the player plays or in their impact. Which is the lion share of what I'm trying to vote on.
Creator of the Hoops Lab: tinyurl.com/mpo2brj
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
Fencer reregistered
RealGM
Posts: 41,052
And1: 27,923
Joined: Oct 25, 2006

Re: RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Tim 

Post#153 » by Fencer reregistered » Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:20 pm

A few notes on Russell, intangibles, and so on:

1. Yes, Russell and Heinsohn had a few problems. But:

1A. I don't think they were all that serious.
1B. Heinsohn is a bit of a bigot. I'm only aware of him saying bigoted things on TV about women and Asians, and those were wacky-old-boozy-uncle mild. But his VERY FIRST SEASON playing with African-Americans? I wouldn't be at all surprised if he were a bit off-putting.
1C. Heinsohn wasn't necessarily the king of effort.

2. Russell was a beloved team leader, even of whites, despite being black in a racist era. That adds a little degree of difficulty to the accomplishment. While there were many teams on which blacks and whites were friends, I'm not aware of other black guys being successful leaders like that for quite a while.

Overall, if I were to name two basketball players who were most impressive in being respected, admired, and liked despite their skin color, it's Russell and Jordan. Russell was respected by all, and loved by those near him. Michael was admired and liked by huge numbers of people around the world.
Banned temporarily for, among other sins, being "Extremely Deviant".
ThaRegul8r
Head Coach
Posts: 6,448
And1: 3,037
Joined: Jan 12, 2006
   

Re: RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Tim 

Post#154 » by ThaRegul8r » Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:21 pm

drza wrote:it'd be nice if at the least a person quoting me to rebut had actually read what I've written.


People don't read anything anymore due to the "tl; dr" meme.
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters


Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
drza
Analyst
Posts: 3,518
And1: 1,861
Joined: May 22, 2001

Re: RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Tim 

Post#155 » by drza » Thu Jun 30, 2011 12:05 am

pancakes3 wrote:again, i recognize Russ's talent. he was a defensive monster. he was able to throw an outlet pass in a way that this league hasn't seen in decades. he swatted shots like they were flies and has a career pf average of 2.7. the problem is.. wilt was doing all of this also and really at what point does the intangible outweigh the tangible?


I guess it's all in your definition of "tangible". I'm a big believer in the importance of +/- stats in evaluating the game. We have increasingly sophisticated +/- measures for evaluating the last decade, but before that we don't have much to work with. That's why, as I mentioned before, seeing the stat-work that some of the folks in the RPoY thread were able to do was revelatory to me. To me, Russell posting dominant impact stats that dwarf any of his contemporaries was very much a "tangible". At that point it's no longer about trying to justify Russell's impact through hand-waving...we have quantitative measures that show his importance. If you still consider his impact to be intangible, then it is at the point where I could numerically measure his value that it outweighed Wilt's tangibles in my mind.
Creator of the Hoops Lab: tinyurl.com/mpo2brj
Contributor to NylonCalculusDOTcom
Contributor to TYTSports: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTbFEVCpx9shKEsZl7FcRHzpGO1dPoimk
Follow on Twitter: @ProfessorDrz
ElGee
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,041
And1: 1,207
Joined: Mar 08, 2010
Contact:

Re: RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Tim 

Post#156 » by ElGee » Thu Jun 30, 2011 12:07 am

@pancakes - Wilt Chamberlain was NOT doing all of what Bill Russell did.

He may have in 1967 (some called it a Russell impression -- how's that for a high praise?) and in 1967, when he put it all together, he had one of the best seasons in NBA history. But they were very different players for most of their career.
Check out and discuss my book, now on Kindle! http://www.backpicks.com/thinking-basketball/
ThaRegul8r
Head Coach
Posts: 6,448
And1: 3,037
Joined: Jan 12, 2006
   

Re: RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Tim 

Post#157 » by ThaRegul8r » Thu Jun 30, 2011 12:13 am

delete
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters


Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
Warspite
RealGM
Posts: 13,537
And1: 1,231
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: Surprise AZ
Contact:
       

Re: RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Tim 

Post#158 » by Warspite » Thu Jun 30, 2011 12:23 am

Vote: Wilt Chamberlain

Nominate DrJ


Theres a case that can be made and IMHO we all have read it and made. I prefer WIlt over everyone.


DrJ:

16time allstar
4 time MVP
3 time champ
5 Finals appearances
5th all time in scoring

Def stats that rival Hakeem.
HomoSapien wrote:Warspite, the greatest poster in the history of realgm.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,594
And1: 22,559
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Tim 

Post#159 » by Doctor MJ » Thu Jun 30, 2011 12:24 am

pancakes3 wrote:again, i recognize Russ's talent. he was a defensive monster. he was able to throw an outlet pass in a way that this league hasn't seen in decades. he swatted shots like they were flies and has a career pf average of 2.7. the problem is.. wilt was doing all of this also and really at what point does the intangible outweigh the tangible?


I feel the need to echo what ElGee said:

Wilt was not doing everything that Russell did. Wilt & Russell were very different physical specimens. Wilt was bigger & stronger, but Russell was quicker.

Bill understood that Wilt’s game was more vertical, that is, from the floor to the basket. Wilt’s game was one of strength and power…Bill’s game was built on finesse and speed, what he called a horizontal game, as he moved back and forth across the court blocking shots, running the floor, and playing team defense.


This does not mean you should assume Russell was inherently superior, but it is not reasonable to think that Wilt was capable of everything Russell was.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,439
And1: 9,963
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Tim 

Post#160 » by penbeast0 » Thu Jun 30, 2011 12:28 am

A few minor points people called me on that I want to answer . . . .

Greenhat -- you say players today may be the same height but they are thicker and longer. Thicker, yeah due to modern weight training (and steroids) but with everyone having the same access to the weights and "supplements" I can't see where that would make a difference. But they are shorter but longer? Really? :roll: Out of what source did you come up with this one?

Sedale Threatt -- People are saying the Celtics offensive stars were inefficient scorers . . . COMPARED TO THEIR OWN ERA, not compared to modern day. That is, when the league average was 40%, Cousy was still gunning away at .380; when the league average was 46%, Havlicek was still shooting 42%, etc. Same as defense, when we say Boston was incredibly efficient at defense (despite being a below average defensive team before Russell) we are talking about efficient compared to other teams of their era, not saying Russell held teams to 40% shooting or implying that he could do that in today's league, just that his could hold teams below their normal efficiency better than any team before or since.

JB -- Wilt was a monster and got even more shots in the playoffs. Yes he got 28 points but on how many shots and was his TEAM more efficient or less efficient against Boston. I think you will find that Wilt's teams, like all the others, were significantly less efficient in scoring against Boston -- whether that came by denying Wilt the ball, by helping on other shooters, or by forcing Wilt into shooting lower percentages and throwing turnovers doesn't matter and we can't tell that from the stats available without more work than I'm up to. We can say Boston's defense made Wilt's teams less efficient.

Also JB; while Boston was in the playoffs the prior 6 years, they got in during half those years despite finishing 2nd and 3rd in a 5 team conference (8 of the 10 teams in the league made the playoffs!) then 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, and 2nd in the 4 prior years. And . . . they lost in the first round 3 of those 6 years and in the conference finals the other three for a playoff series record of 3-6 . . . hardly the 90%+ winning record of Russell led Boston teams.

Unbiased Fan -- While your rebound numbers are too low because you are ignoring the team rebound issue, I will say that a 10ppg/15rpg DPOY with good passing skills who made his team defensively as much better than the second place team in the league as the second place team was better than the second to worst team . . . and did it consistently every year . . . would get so many accolades today that people would be saying Shaq Who? and kids would be growing up wanting to be defensive substitutes because that's where the money would be going. Add to it that that DPOY's team won every damn year and it would be an MJ level phenomenon.

Greenhat -- you are right about blocked shots not being turnovers. I was thinking of plays that take the ball from one team and give it to the other which is what a turnover is supposed to define but because most great shotblockers slam the ball to intimidate like Dwight Howard (or Wilt), blocks that direct the ball to teammates to start the fast break aren't considered turnovers in the stat box although they have the same effect.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.

Return to Player Comparisons